While a district court ruled in favor of the government, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected its blanket assertion of the state secrets privilege over some of the information in the case. 在这样做, it overruled the judgment of then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo regarding the potential harm to national security. The court noted that the fact that the CIA had operated a detention facility in Poland, and details surrounding Zubaydah’s torture was no longer a state secret in part because it had been disclosed in other legal proceedings as well as a congressional report. Disclosure of that information, 法院说, would not cause grave danger to national security.
At the Supreme Court Wednesday, acting Solicitor General Brian Fletcher told the justices that compelling the government to release the details would harm “covert intelligence partnerships” that depend upon “我们的同伴’ trust that we will keep those relationships confidential.”
He said the contractors’ subpoenas should be blocked because the men would be testifying in a proceeding “designed to investigate and prosecute our alleged former allies abroad.”
The federal appeals court should have deferred to the CIA’s expertise in the matter and not make its own assessment of national security harms, Fletcher said. The government has already declassified a significant amount of information, including details of Zubaydah’s treatment and the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. But it determined that certain categories of information, including the identities of its foreign intelligence partners and the location of its CIA detention facilities should not be declassified in order to protect national security. A Senate Intelligence Committee report later detailed that Zubaydah experienced at least 83 waterboard applications.
David Klein, a lawyer for Zubaydah, said the information was necessary to better understand the conditions in his client’s cell and how he was tortured.
“We are not talking about a secret anymore,” Klein said. “We are talking about a governmental wish not to assist this Polish investigation.”
The justices probed the level of deference courts owe to the government when it comes to state secrets, but they also raised questions about the fact that the information would be used not in a US proceeding, but in a foreign court.
Although Justice Elena Kagan said a claim of state secrets could be “滑稽的” at times when the information was in the public realm — at another point she nodded to the need to protect relationships with allies.
Chief Justice John Roberts also pointed out the “breach of faith with our allies and friends around the world.”
Justice 克拉伦斯·托马斯 pushed Klein on the fact that a lot of the information had already been disclosed
. “Why do you need additional testimony
But as they grappled with the case Justice Stephen Breyer brought up a separate issue
. He asked the government
, “Why don’t you ask Zubaydah
Justice Neil Gorsuch also asked Fletcher point blank: “Why not make the witness available?” Gorsuch suggested if the government did so, it would no longer be required to make any kind of direct admission.
弗莱彻, who appeared surprised by the question, responded that Zubaydah, is subject to the same restrictions that apply to similar detainees at Guantanamo. His communications are “subject to security screening for classified information and other security risks.”
That prompted Breyer to add, “I don’t understand why he’s still there after 14 年份,”
Fletcher said the government would submit a “direct answer” to the question.
Sotomayor also jumped in. “We want a clear answer, are you going to permit him to testify as to what happened to him? “她问. “Yes or no.”
“We’d be happy to respond,” Fletcher said.